4410-11 DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE Antitrust Division
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/05/2021 and available online at federalregister.gov/d/2021-16682, and on govinfo.govBilling Code: 4410-11 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States v. Gray Television, Inc., et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in United States of America v. Gray Television, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-02041. On July, 28, 2021, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that Gray Television, Inc.’s (“Gray”) proposed acquisition of Quincy Media, Inc.’s (“Quincy”) commercial television broadcast stations would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The proposed Final Judgment, filed at the same time as the Complaint, requires Gray and Quincy to divest commercial television broadcast stations in seven local television markets: (i) Tucson, Arizona; (ii) Madison, Wisconsin; (iii) Rockford, Illinois; (iv) Paducah, Kentucky – Cape Girardeau, Missouri – Harrisburg-Mt. Vernon, Illinois; (v) Cedar Rapids-Waterloo-Iowa City-Dubuque, Iowa; (vi) La Crosse-Eau Claire, Wisconsin; and (vii) Wausau-Rhinelander, Wisconsin. Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division’s website at http://www.justice.gov/atr and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations. Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Antitrust Division’s website, filed with the Court, and, under certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register. Comments should be submitted in English and directed to Scott Scheele, Chief, Media, Entertainment, and Communications Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 7000, Washington, DC 20530 (email address: [email protected]). Suzanne Morris, Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 450 Fifth Street NW Washington, DC 20530 Plaintiff, Case No.: 1:21-cv-02041-CJN v. Judge: Carl J. Nichols GRAY TELEVISION, INC. 4370 Peachtree Road NE Atlanta, Georgia 30319; and QUINCY MEDIA, INC. 130 South 5th Street Quincy, Illinois 62301 Defendants. COMPLAINT The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil action against Gray Television, Inc. (“Gray”) and Quincy Media, Inc. (“Quincy”) to enjoin Gray’s proposed acquisition of Quincy. The United States complains and alleges as follows: I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated January 31, 2021, Gray plans to acquire Quincy for approximately $925 million in cash. 2. The proposed acquisition would combine popular local television stations that compete against each other in several markets, likely resulting in significant harm to competition. 3. In seven Designated Market Areas (“DMAs”), Gray and Quincy each own at least one broadcast television station that is affiliated with one of the “Big Four” television networks: NBC, CBS, ABC, or FOX. These seven DMAs, collectively referred to in this Complaint as the “Overlap DMAs” are: (i) Tucson, Arizona; (ii) Madison, Wisconsin; (iii) Rockford, Illinois; (iv) Paducah, Kentucky – Cape Girardeau, Missouri – Harrisburg-Mt. Vernon, Illinois; (v) Cedar Rapids-Waterloo-Iowa City-Dubuque, Iowa; (vi) La Crosse-Eau Claire, Wisconsin; and (vii) Wausau-Rhinelander, Wisconsin. 4. In each Overlap DMA, the proposed acquisition would eliminate competition between Gray and Quincy in the licensing of Big Four network content (“retransmission consent”) to cable, satellite, fiber optic television, and over-the-top providers (referred to collectively as multichannel video programming distributors or “MVPDs”), for distribution to their subscribers. Additionally, in each Overlap DMA, the proposed acquisition would eliminate competition between Gray and Quincy in the sale of broadcast television spot advertising to advertisers interested in reaching viewers in the DMA. 5. By eliminating a competitor, the acquisition would likely give Gray the power to charge MVPDs higher fees for its programming—fees that those companies would likely pass on, in large measure, to their subscribers. Additionally, the acquisition would likely allow Gray to charge local businesses and other advertisers higher prices to reach audiences in the Overlap DMAs. 6. As a result, the proposed acquisition of Quincy by Gray likely would substantially lessen competition in the markets for retransmission consent in each of the Overlap DMAs, and in the markets for selling broadcast television spot advertising in each of the Overlap DMAs, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. II. THE DEFENDANTS 7. Gray is a Georgia corporation with its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. Gray owns 165 television stations in 94 DMAs, of which 139 are Big Four affiliates. In 2020, Gray reported revenues of $2.4 billion. 8. Quincy is an Illinois corporation with its headquarters in Quincy, Illinois. Quincy owns 20 television stations in 16 DMAs, of which 19 are Big Four affiliates. In 2020, Quincy had revenues of approximately $338 million. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. The United States brings this action under Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 25, as amended, to prevent and restrain Defendants from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. 10. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 25, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), and 1345. 11. Defendants sell broadcast television spot advertising to businesses (either directly or through advertising agencies) in the flow of interstate commerce, and such activities substantially affect interstate commerce. 12. Gray and Quincy have each consented to venue and personal jurisdiction in this judicial district for purposes of this action. Both companies transact business in this district. Venue is proper in this district under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). IV. BIG FOUR TELEVISION RETRANSMISSION CONSENT MARKETS A. Background 13. MVPDs, such as Comcast, DirecTV, and Mediacom, typically pay the owner of each local Big Four broadcast station in a given DMA a per-subscriber fee for the right to retransmit the station’s content to the MVPDs’ subscribers. The per- subscriber fee and other terms under which an MVPD is permitted to distribute a station’s content to its subscribers are set forth in a retransmission agreement. A retransmission agreement is negotiated directly between a broadcast station group, such as Gray or Quincy, and a given MVPD, and this agreement typically covers all of the station group’s stations located in the MVPD’s service area, or “footprint.” 14. Each broadcast station group typically renegotiates retransmission agreements with the MVPDs every few years. If an MVPD and a broadcast station group cannot agree on a retransmission consent fee at the expiration of a retransmission agreement, the result may be a “blackout” of the broadcast group’s stations from the particular MVPD—i.e., an open-ended period during which the MVPD may not distribute those stations to its subscribers until a new contract is successfully negotiated. B. Relevant Markets 1. Product Market 15. Big Four broadcast content has special appeal to television viewers in comparison to the content that is available through other broadcast stations and cable networks. Big Four stations usually are the highest ranked in terms of audience share and ratings in each DMA, largely because of unique offerings such as local news, sports, and highly ranked primetime programs. 16. Because of Big Four stations’ popular national content and valued local coverage, MVPDs regard Big Four programming as highly desirable for inclusion in the packages they offer subscribers. 17. Non-Big Four broadcast stations are typically not close substitutes for viewers of Big Four stations. Stations that are affiliates of networks other than the Big Four, such as the CW Network, MyNetworkTV, or Telemundo, typically feature niche programming without local news, weather or sports—or, in the case of Telemundo, only offer local news, weather, and sports aimed at a Spanish-speaking audience. Stations that are unaffiliated with any network are similarly unlikely to carry programming with broad popular appeal. 18. If an MVPD suffers a blackout of a Big Four station in a given DMA, many of the MVPD’s subscribers in that DMA are likely to turn to other Big Four stations in the DMA to watch similar content, such as sports, primetime shows, and local news and weather. This willingness of viewers to switch between competing Big Four broadcast stations limits an MVPD’s expected losses in the case of a blackout, and thus limits a broadcaster’s ability to extract higher fees from that MVPD—since an MVPD’s willingness to pay higher retransmission consent fees for content rises or falls with the harm it would suffer if that content were lost. 19. Due to the limited programming typically offered by non-Big Four stations, viewers are much less likely to switch to a non-Big Four station than to switch to other Big Four stations in the event of a blackout of a Big Four station. Accordingly, competition from non-Big Four stations does not typically impose a significant competitive constraint on the retransmission consent fees charged by the owners of Big Four stations.